SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Myself and other submitters have noticed that articles are being edited to change the tone and intent of our stories.
Soylentil McD has suggested that "Minor edits, spelling corrections, and such, are no problem and to be expected." but "I think soylent editors should adhere to a policy of not putting words in the submitter's mouth".
I agree with that. If the editors want to add their own two cents, they can respond inline like the rest of us. Their role here is to be responsible, not privileged.
The stories we submit are a reflection of our enthusiasms and beliefs, the tone and character of those posts is as much part of the submitter's story as the actual content. The community is what makes sites like SN and Slashdot before it, an eclectic community with a wide range of opinions, styles and passions will always be more active and interesting than a bland monoculture. SN's editors should embrace and encourage that diversity, not sabotage it to appease some corporate interests.
So what do other Soylentils think? Should the submissions be allowed to stand as a clear reflection of the community's intent, or should the editors change our submissions to suit their perception of suitability?
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Sunday May 24 2015, @07:33PM
This whole incident started not with a TONE edit, but a factual edit, where the submitter of THIS post submitted another post which used an outright LIE, and attributed it to a liked story. In doing so, he libeled not only the company that everyone loves to hate, but also the author of the linked story, but putting words in that author's mouth.
The editor caught it too late, and the rest is history.
1) It is entirely possible to submit a totally biased viewpoint, and cite links that support that bias.
2) It is totally possible to separate the submitter's viewpoint from the that of the linked article.
3) There is no need to take a unbiased story, lie about what it saysput words into the mouth of TFA's authors.
But once a submitter has chosen to violate ALL of those tenants, it is extreme cowardice to then attack the editors who catch that deception, and accuse them of putting words in your mouth.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @09:10PM
If the editor caught the error before publishing - reject the submission and ask for rewrite, noting errors (other than spelling and grammer).
If the editor publishes it - then take it whole damn thing down. Post a place holder reporting the high level issue. Example: facts do not match, requesting a correction form the submitter. Once a replacement is made and accepted, then start a new, with a link to original "in error post" maybe.
Being hatchet men or a ghost writer to someone's else work (note copy-written by default in the US, so the original writer owns the work!), is just bad form. Watch the BBC "Boardchurch" to see that play out. A piece of work was written to support then the paper re-wrote it to teardown but still assigned same reporters the credit. (YES, putting words in the writer's mouth)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 24 2015, @11:55PM
The story submitter did not lie, he used a word to summarize the actions of MS.
E.g., A story describes a place where people stand around and bid on items called out by a man in the center of the room, and the item is sold to the highest bidder. It is perfectly reasonable for a story submitter to summarize the event as "an auction took place".
This is no different than summarizing MS threatening the UK to pull out unless it gets its way as extortion. I think "blackmail" was simply an incorrect word choice by the submitter. If the editor had caught this incorrect word choice, and replaced it with extortion, I bet the original submitter would have been OK, and it would have accurately summarized the actions of MS.